Secularism and Poverty

A colleague recently mentioned that a wag had observed the church had failed to solve poverty, so why not let the federal government have a try?

I think it is interesting that anyone, such as the wag in question, could think that the federal government can effectively solve the problem of poverty. I don’t think it can because it resolutely refuses to confront the sources.

Really, truly, don’t we know the cause of a great deal of the poverty in our midst? Here’s a hint: Adam Smith thought the poor who gravitated to the fiery preachers were wise. Why? Because the hell and brimstoners alone preached the doctrines that might prevent the poor from the catastrophic consequences of things like losing their jobs and money on liquor and gambling.

I can recall having lunch with Micah Watson, a colleague who teaches at Union, and he was talking about the trouble Jackson, TN has with some of its public schools. He said something that stuck. He said, “Many families in our school district lack the cultural capital to succeed.”

And he is right. Anyone who looks at the research in a dispassionate way will discover that people who do just a few things will almost never live in poverty. Those few things are that they will graduate from high school, get married, and delay childbearing until after marriage. If you do that, you will probably not spend your life below the poverty line.

Going a little further you will also find that children who come from intact, two parent families are significantly more likely to do better in school, to have fewer behavioral problems, to commit fewer crimes, to stay out of jail, to avoid sexual and physical abuse, and to stay off of public assistance than are their peers from broken homes or from single parent homes. These things are true even if you control for race.

For some reason, and I would argue that it is partially because of our silly secular mindset that favors avoiding moralism, we are unwilling to embody some of this knowledge in our public policy. When President Bush suggested that maybe we just might consider trying to encourage marriage among the poor, protest erupted. It was the same old thing, theocracy, blah, blah, blah . . . For some reason the morality that extends welfare to poor people is perfectly fine while the morality that would gently urge them toward the things that help human beings flourish is threatening and terrible and ultra-religious.

Does the church do enough? It does not, but I would argue that in part we fail to combat the problem of poverty adequately in the church because we think the duty has been subcontracted out to the state. The larger the state becomes, the less air is left in the community space for everyone else, especially the church because we buy into the idea of a secular state. (This is a point I talk about, by the way, in The End of Secularism.) The state eats up both resources and social influence. The system does not realize it has a soul, or if it does it is busy trying to kill it.

Comments

[Steve]

Excellent argument. I hear this so often, this notion that the church isn't doing nearly enough to fight poverty. Now, it's certainly true that Christians can do far more. But, in response to the question "Why aren't we doing more?", how many of us have heard parishioners say, "Hey, isn't that why I pay taxes?" And, frankly, isn't that the message that the government has constantly been telling us, that our taxes are essentially charity? So, why perform charity on top of the "charity" performed on our behalf by our so very charitable leaders?

No excuse, of course, but one can see how Christians can get to that point.

[Magister Christianus]

This is an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of many in our church, especially those in leadership. There are clearly Scriptural mandates about assisting the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned. My question is how to do it? Is it just a matter of giving to the food banks, giving to the clothing drives? Clearly, these are important acts, yet they seem to miss the mark of what you suggest. They do not address those "few things" that will keep a person out of poverty, they do not address the "cultural capital." I would love to see some discussion on this. Brass tacks time...what should individual Christians and churches in their corporate capacity be doing?

[John V]

"Cultural capital" - nice phrase. One wonders how many today, considering the parable of the ten bridesmaids (Mt. 25: 1-13), would instinctively suggest a federal program to provide subsidies so the five could purchase oil (paid for by a tax surcharge on the other five), along with a court action for an injunction to prevent the groom from closing the door to the wedding hall in the mean time.

[James]

I agree with much of what you're saying, and would add frugality and a good work ethic to the list of a few things people might do to avoid poverty (it certainly has helped me).

Nevertheless, you fail to mention the immorality of those at the top of our economic chain of being when it comes to causing poverty. Let's face it, if conservatives were to completely get their way when it comes to economics - if there were no labor laws, environmental laws and fair lending laws; if de-regulation ruled the day - we would be living in a Charles Dickens novel. I find it strange that many conservatives either don't realize this or fail to mention it.

[Mark M]

Great article. James is "right on" about the other issues--the destruction of middle class jobs and unions by market interests only interested in profit and self interest. You need both strong stable two parent families with the right cultural values and markets/businesses with the right values to insure living wage jobs for their employees and neigbors to end poverty.

[Tony]

Many of us on this site are fans of Wendell Berry, who argues that the vandalism of agribusiness and of the economics of the masses is in a sick symbiosis with the vandalism of the sexual revolution. I wish I could tell everybody to spend less money, and spend more of what they do spend on mom-and-pop enterprises. We need an entire revolution in thinking. First off, we need to ask the simple question, "Is this (whatever it may happen to be) good for the economy, meaning, good for the order and the beauty of my household?" Most of what we buy now, and most of what we devote our hours to, would fail that test. I know that my own habits would fail it, time and again. But it is the question we need to ask.

[Rob G]

"if conservatives were to completely get their way when it comes to economics - if there were no labor laws, environmental laws and fair lending laws; if de-regulation ruled the day - we would be living in a Charles Dickens novel. I find it strange that many conservatives either don't realize this or fail to mention it."

That's because very few conservatives actually believe it. What you are presenting is a caricature. What conservatives do you actually READ?

[Bull]

John V - thanks for unpacking that. Very insightful!

[Nemo]

I don't really understand these matters, but it strikes me that the phrase "solve poverty" carries with it a great many assumptions (or perhaps they are conclusions) about the nature of the world. Is poverty a problem to be solved? Has the Church failed because it has not solved the problem of poverty? Might this be a thoroughly modern notion, inconceivable before recent centuries?

Is the purpose of the church to solve poverty, even though our Lord said the poor will always be with us? Is the Church supposed to solve the problem of pain? Of disease? Of death? Has the Church failed because people still get sick and die? The Church, in its early centuries, did not even seem inclined to solve the problem of slavery, a fact that seems to cause us consternation now.

Yes, Christians certainly must devote themselves to mercy, but clothing the widows in my church and making sure my neighbor's children have bread (here I mean "neighbor" in its narrowest sense -- the people next door whom I walk past daily) seems somehow very different from solving the problem of poverty. The Lord blesses and welcomes the sheep for looking after the sick and visiting the prisoners. He does not demand the eradiation of disease and prisons.

It strikes me that the Church _redeemed_ slavery and poverty rather than "solving" them. Masters and slaves continued to be masters and slaves, but they worshiped together and loved one another. They even delighted to suffer martyrdom together as in the famous account of Perpetua and and her slave girl Felicity. St. Ignatius, as I recall, counseled the Church not to purchase the freedom of slaves lest the freedmen be found slaves of their own desires. Earthly slavery was inconsequential in light of the freedom offered in the Gospel.

Similarly the Gospel made loving partners of rich and poor. An early example is the "Shepherd of Hermas" that portrays the rich man as an unfruitful elm tree and the poor man as a grape vine whose fruit rots on the ground. Let the vine climb the elm, however, and both together are fruitful, the elm supporting the vine so that its fruit stays off the ground and flourishes. Thus the rich man, poor in spiritual things, gives to provide for the poor man, rich in spiritual things, who abounds in thanksgiving and prayer to God for such provision. You can read the passage at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.ii.iv.ii.html.

Seeing poverty as a problem to be solved seems to lead to the question "Who sinned that this man lives in poverty? Was it his own sin, or is it the sin of the Church (or the government)?" Today we seem to be trying to answer that question as posed, deciding where the sin lies. In her early centuries the Church seemed to know how to answer, "Neither this man nor the Church (or government) sinned, but this happened that the work of God might be displayed in his life (and ours)."

I wonder if our understanding of the Gospel has been subtly warped into something utopian, trying to make the Kingdom of God be "of this world" in a way that it can never be. As we all know, the road to utopia unfailing turns out to be simply the road to hell, attractively paved with good intentions.

[James]

"Many of us on this site are fans of Wendell Berry,"

I would like to read more of him. He intrigues me. He seems to combine compassion for the poor, respect for the earth and a passion for peace with frugality, industry and sobriety. He's a liberal in the heart and a conservative in the head, which is a good combination. I believe he was also critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is this true?

As to the conservatives I have read, I have read Russell Kirk, John Adams, a little Bill Buckley, a little Wendell Berry, T.S. Eliot and Edmund Burke, thinkers of which I have the highest respect. My comments referred to the popular conservatism of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the Republican Party, which conveniently fail to include the wealthy in their personal responsibility sermons.

[Ole Birch]

Poverty explained without reference to justice, economics, education or globalism. What nonsense. But very convenient.